Failed terrorist attack in Detroit

[NorthSideSox72]

Yup. That's the government subsidy I'm talking about. You only pay a limited amount (tolls) to use those roads directly, and usually that doesn't even cover the cost of the roads.

Correct. Roads are 99% free (in terms of direct cost), except for the few toll roads around the country. Trains usually charge fares, and yet still get federal and state dollars at a miniscule percentage of roads - lower that use levels would dictate.

 

[southsider2k5]

If the rail system can improve its infrastructure, and get around the current contention issues with freight rail, you will start to see some of that shifting occur. I don't see driving becoming much more popular, unless gas prices decline notably and sustainably.

 

If more and more people start to depend on rail in this country, that is where the terror attacks will shift. This is a bad pun, but very apt. They want the most bang for their buck in a terror attack. In the rest of the world, many attacks have been on rail lines. Since the US doesn't use it as much, there isn't as much reason to attack it. It doesn't have the same level of fear outside of a few metro areas in the US.

[NorthSideSox72]

If more and more people start to depend on rail in this country, that is where the terror attacks will shift. This is a bad pun, but very apt. They want the most bang for their buck in a terror attack. In the rest of the world, many attacks have been on rail lines. Since the US doesn't use it as much, there isn't as much reason to attack it. It doesn't have the same level of fear outside of a few metro areas in the US.

Eh, sort of. Right now, rail is a small fraction of the pie. Even if its improved dramatically, its still going to be a minority.

 

The real reason why terrorist acts will start hitting rail - which they might - is that security isn't nearly as tight.

 

[Balta1701]

Eh, sort of. Right now, rail is a small fraction of the pie. Even if its improved dramatically, its still going to be a minority.

 

The real reason why terrorist acts will start hitting rail - which they might - is that security isn't nearly as tight.

I still think if they're smart at all, they go after either a mall near X-Mas time or go after a school. That's how you paralyze this country. But they've always been more interested in the spectacular, world-changing attack than the actual strategic type attacks.

[lostfan]

If more and more people start to depend on rail in this country, that is where the terror attacks will shift. This is a bad pun, but very apt. They want the most bang for their buck in a terror attack. In the rest of the world, many attacks have been on rail lines. Since the US doesn't use it as much, there isn't as much reason to attack it. It doesn't have the same level of fear outside of a few metro areas in the US.

I see the point you're making and it's valid but I don't think I buy your reasoning. If someone left a bomb on a Red Line train and blew it up and killed a couple hundred people in a downtown station, don't you think that'd still be a pretty big deal? Like, a really, really big deal?

[southsider2k5]

I see the point you're making and it's valid but I don't think I buy your reasoning. If someone left a bomb on a Red Line train and blew it up and killed a couple hundred people in a downtown station, don't you think that'd still be a pretty big deal? Like, a really, really big deal?

 

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a big deal, but the scare factor nationally wouldn't be the same as blowing up a plane. Way more people fly than take a train.

[lostfan]

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a big deal, but the scare factor nationally wouldn't be the same as blowing up a plane. Way more people fly than take a train.

Well, I think that's still true in Europe though, blowing up a plane in general is more impressive (for lack of a better word) than blowing up a train.

[southsider2k5]

Well, I think that's still true in Europe though, blowing up a plane in general is more impressive (for lack of a better word) than blowing up a train.

 

A lot more people take trains there, which is why you see it utilized more there.

[bmags]

I don't buy it ss, if an attack happened on a public transportation vehicle in a major metropolitan area, that scares the s*** on effectively everyone in THAT city, and frankly, EVERY city that uses public transportation. And considering a train attack on say, a metro train, would eff up the track, it also causes huge inconveniences from here on out. There are so many planes that run a day there will always be a "what are the odds", but when you start narrowing it down to train lines, it's a little bit more damning.

[southsider2k5]

I don't buy it ss, if an attack happened on a public transportation vehicle in a major metropolitan area, that scares the s*** on effectively everyone in THAT city, and frankly, EVERY city that uses public transportation. And considering a train attack on say, a metro train, would eff up the track, it also causes huge inconveniences from here on out. There are so many planes that run a day there will always be a "what are the odds", but when you start narrowing it down to train lines, it's a little bit more damning.

 

Blowing up four planes shutdown the entire US air system for three days.

[lostfan]

Yeah but that's like an exceptionally rare occurrence. Blowing up trains, relatively speaking, is orders of magnitude easier and that's part of the psychological damage it does.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah but that's like an exceptionally rare occurrence. Blowing up trains, relatively speaking, is orders of magnitude easier and that's part of the psychological damage it does.

 

The problem is that barely anyone uses trains. They are pretty much confined to old cities in the US, and that is about it. Rurally, they train passengers are about as rare as Cubs WS's.

[bmags]

Yeah but that's like an exceptionally rare occurrence. Blowing up trains, relatively speaking, is orders of magnitude easier and that's part of the psychological damage it does.

 

this, and what measures do you take on afterwards? in Paris if there is a bag left on a train everything stops until it's removed, on the other hand their metros are faster and more reliable, do that to ours and see what happens.

[bmags]

The problem is that barely anyone uses trains. They are pretty much confined to old cities in the US, and that is about it. Rurally, they train passengers are about as rare as Cubs WS's.

 

I'm kind of at a loss here...more people live in cities than rural areas. And how often do people in rural areas fly?

[lostfan]

I'd say there are enough people that live in major cities that it doesn't matter how rural people are affected.

[southsider2k5]

76 million people flew in 2002, which would have been about 1 in 3.5 people. I can't find anything for train traffic, but I have to imagine that it is less than that.

[bmags]

They also take the trains like every day though. It's how they get to work/live. That's pretty killer to take away.

[southsider2k5]

They also take the trains like every day though. It's how they get to work/live. That's pretty killer to take away.

 

Which would be an even smaller percentage, of a small percentage. Even in cities, most people still take cars to work. After that, buses are much more prevalent most places. Past that, a line only affects a certain part of a metro area. Shutting down O'hare would be much more damaging than shutting down Union Station. People who were trying to get into the city would have many more options to do so, than someone who was flying somewhere.

[lostfan]

I fly relatively frequently, but that's only 3-4x a year.

[Texsox]

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_t...able_01_37.html

 

Some interesting facts and figures. I would need some time to sort through. Miles is probably a poor comparison.

 

Grocery shopping would be the most terrific IMHO. We all eat. Start setting bombs in grocery stores and soon we'll be calling for metal detectors at every Piggly Wiggly

[Texsox]

I entered this stretch of the thread disagreeing with 2k5 and now I'm agreeing. Nice posts SS. You must practice.

[bmags]

Blow up the red line and see the chaos and terror in the city. That's my point. There's pretty much no security on it. you'd essentially shut down the entire el. Flooding everyone on buses that are already overcrowded. An entire major city would be nearly immobilized.

[mr_genius]

Blow up the red line and see the chaos and terror in the city. That's my point. There's pretty much no security on it. you'd essentially shut down the entire el. Flooding everyone on buses that are already overcrowded. An entire major city would be nearly immobilized.

 

the redline has gone out of operation before and it didn't even come close to shutting down the city. a terrorist attack on the redline would really mess things up for a good while, but the city would not be any where near immobilized. there's plenty of ways to get around without the redline. use a combination of other transportation. but it would make people scared to take public trans for a while.

 

now if you attacked all the lines, and some buses. different story.

Edited January 7, 2010 by mr_genius

[NorthSideSox72]

SS2K5, the reason they choose planes has zero to do with how many people fly vs take a train. Further, your assumption is wrong:

 

According to the US DOT, 2 million people fly per day.

 

The NY rail transit system ALONE loads 7 million passengers a day. The CTA in Chicago is nearly a million day. That's just two cities, and doesn't include the other couple dozen cities with rail transit, or the tens or hundreds of thousands every day who use Amtrak.

 

Rail transit has more people, every day, hands down.

 

The reasons that terrorists pick planes are simple. First and foremost, bang for buck - a relatively small explosion can bring down an entire plane, killing 150 or 250 or more people in one act. That same explosion on a train might kill a handful, at best. Second, plane crashes are spectacular events, that captivate the world. Big balls of fire. All that s***. These are the reasons they choose planes - not because of the number of people who fly.

 

[southsider2k5]

SS2K5, the reason they choose planes has zero to do with how many people fly vs take a train. Further, your assumption is wrong:

 

According to the US DOT, 2 million people fly per day.

 

The NY rail transit system ALONE loads 7 million passengers a day. The CTA in Chicago is nearly a million day. That's just two cities, and doesn't include the other couple dozen cities with rail transit, or the tens or hundreds of thousands every day who use Amtrak.

 

Rail transit has more people, every day, hands down.

 

The reasons that terrorists pick planes are simple. First and foremost, bang for buck - a relatively small explosion can bring down an entire plane, killing 150 or 250 or more people in one act. That same explosion on a train might kill a handful, at best. Second, plane crashes are spectacular events, that captivate the world. Big balls of fire. All that s***. These are the reasons they choose planes - not because of the number of people who fly.

 

Both of those places load the almost all of the same people every day on to trains. You can also look at the other side of the picture. How many major cities have zero train transit? Blowing up a train in NYC does nothing to scare someone in DFW, because they have zero rail traffic. Blow up a plane in NYC, and you shutdown DFW airport too.

 

I already posted the numbers about how many individual people total flew per year, and I can't see the rail number being more significant. To spread fear, you need to affect the most of the general populace. For example, that is why AIDS was essentially ignored when it was a "gay" disease. But boy, once it hit the mainstream, it was a HUGE deal. Terrorism is the same way. You need something that puts fear into the most people for it to be the most effective.